New satellite imaging has revealed that hurricanes Katrina and Rita produced the largest single forestry disaster on record in America - an essentially unreported ecological catastrophe that killed or severely damaged some 320 million trees in Mississippi and Louisiana.

The die-off, caused initially by wind and later by the pooling of stagnant water, was so massive that researchers say it will add significantly to the greenhouse gas buildup - ultimately putting as much carbon from dying vegetation into the air as the rest of the American forest takes out in a year of photosynthesis.

In addition, the downing of so many trees has opened vast and sometimes fragile tracts of land to several aggressive and fast-growing exotic species that are already squeezing out far more environmentally productive native species.

The new assessment of trees killed or severely damaged comes from a study to be released today in the journal Science, written primarily by researchers at Tulane University in New Orleans who studied images from two NASA satellites.

‘...it will add significantly to the greenhouse gas buildup - ultimately putting as much carbon from dying vegetation into the air as the rest of the American forest takes out in a year of photosynthesis.’

So in other words, the forest and nature are in balance in only one year, great, thanks for the update Mr. Science

Perhaps the firewood business will BOOM and pull the US out of the MAJOR EConomic DEPRESSION that the Media has been telling us about..the northeast could heat their homes with wood and cut oil imporst in Half...

“In addition, the downing of so many trees has opened vast and sometimes fragile tracts of land to several aggressive and fast-growing exotic species that are already squeezing out far more environmentally productive native species.”

And these exotic species don’t need CO2 to grow, right?

7
posted on 11/16/2007 8:00:24 AM PST
by Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

I think this is pure BS. I have seen hurricane destruction of pine forest in the Carolinas. It is not uncommon to loose a lot of pines, but pines grow very fast. I would like to know who counted 320 million trees.

Did anyone count the number of trees killed when Mt. St Helen blew? They got a REAL twofer there... Tons of ash and CO2 along with, God only knows, how many dead trees. Gee, it is so amazing that we are still here despite the death of a tree.

I am now waiting for a study on the CO2 impact of mowed grass, and my nightly snoring.

11
posted on 11/16/2007 8:15:59 AM PST
by AlexW
(Reporting from Bratislava, Slovakia. Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)

“catastrophe that killed or severely damaged some 320 million trees in Mississippi and Louisiana”

That’s funny, it seems that Texas was not affected by Rita vis a vis omission in this article. You’d never know that if you drove around the Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange area. The folks were evacuated for weeks and blue tarps were on roofs crushed by falling trees for more than a year as people waited for insurance settlements. But there were no Aaron Broussards, Ray Nagins, or Kathleen Blanco’s encouraging unrest or a populace bent on looting for the media to champion. Only a community working hard and pulling together to put the pieces back with little help from outside forces but a significant effort from local and surrounding churches who made more difference in peoples lives than FEMA cards could.

The average forest has 820 trees/acre which means 320 million trees lost should represent an area of 610 sq. mi. of forest.

In all, 2100 sq. mi. were under water at one point in both states, most of it (1700) in Mississippi.

So I suppose that the trees in question were more likely the sort of trees you see driving along the highways and city streets at about 160 trees/acre.

This year’s fires out west stripped the land over a 1,200 sq. mi. area to the Mexican border releasing most of the CO2 in that short of a period of time while the downed and rotting trees in the hurricanes’ path will take many years to rot, releasing their carbon slowly over time.

How can one be qualitatively defined as “worst?”

13
posted on 11/16/2007 8:22:30 AM PST
by Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

Excellent point. The hype is appalling and comes from not knowing basic facts and failing to do some simple arithmetic.
Question: What area of forest are we talking about with 300 million trees?
Question: What % of the total forest area of the US is that?
Question: What is the annual net growth of forests in terms of carbon sequestering?
Question: What is the annual rate of actual carbon release of these impacted trees?
Given reasonable estimates of the above I believe the hype in the article is grossly exaggerated. I will wait for the article before revealing my calculation.

Prof: You may be right on your estimate of 820 per acre but that translates into 1 tree for roughly 5 sq yds ( approx 7’ x 7’ )which means we are talking about some pretty small or tightly packed trees.

Would you agree to an estimate of about 1000 sq miles which gives approximately 500 trees per acre - all of which needed to die off!!

Katrina and Rita produced the largest single forestry disaster on record in America - an essentially unreported ecological catastrophe that killed or severely damaged some 320 million trees in Mississippi and Louisiana.

It opens a moral dilemma for liberals who by carbon offsets.The theory of carbon offsets is to plant a tree that will take carbon out of the atmosphere and store its wood.In theory, a gian Redwood could store the carbon for 1000 years.

But what happens when a tree dies, or even worse, is burned in a CaliforniKA wildfire.All that carbon is released!!

Hurricane Rita hit the heavily commercially forested southwestern part of the state. The loss was from wind damage. I'm talking miles and miles and miles, make that square miles, of trees snapped in half.

The timber companies did a pretty good job of salvaging what they could of the downed trees. Almost all of the downed trees that could not be salvaged were put through chippers and then burnt. I can't find my pics of the debris sites but they covered acres with piles 20-30 feet high.

This was the scene for about 100 miles inland.

24
posted on 11/16/2007 11:54:57 AM PST
by CajunConservative
(They can either go quietly or they can go loudly but either way they will go. Bobby Jindal)

The picture is very helpful - both in seeing the damage, % of tree lost and the density of the forest. However, while 300 million sounds like a lot of trees it is in fact a minuscle % of what we have. Moreover, that carbon is only significantly released if the trees are burned.

Oh I know they are hyping it but living here and seeing the extreme damage was mind boggling. The timber industry was quick to clear the damage and replant. The majority of the trees commercially grown are loblolly or slash pine plus a few long leaf pines. They grow very fast. There was a lot of hardwood tree damage but many areas are already recovering nicely as it always does in nature. I understand more clearly why there are so many ancient live oaks. They barely lost their leaves and were still standing.

26
posted on 11/16/2007 1:17:29 PM PST
by CajunConservative
(They can either go quietly or they can go loudly but either way they will go. Bobby Jindal)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.